Sagara wrote:Although, in pure honesty, the blame lays more in the human being wielding the religion than the faith itself (I wouldn't even use the word "religion" as the hand of Man is found everywhere on it).

Exactly! Religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive things.

They sure seem to be when it comes to Texas textbooks. I cringe to think of children growing up thinking creationism and evolution are equally valid, and that the scientific use of the term "theory" equates to the colloquial use synonymous with "hunch".

You are misunderstanding our point. Those folks in Texas putting stuff in textbooks aren't "religion" they are people interpreting a religion. And frankly, the most prominent authority of their own religion disagrees with them. I don't think the bible says "evolution is wrong" and I think reading genesis and concluding it is at odds with evolution is an individual interpretation but that's an entirely different topic.

There's no universal set of religious rules, so the notion that "religion says" anything is kind of silly. That's like saying humanity says 2+2=5 because some member of humanity probably did at some point. Passionario pointed out some things "science says" that are/were wrong, which provides a proper context. It's not that science is wrong, it's that the people implementing the science were wrong. It's no different with religion and I think it's a bit unfair to categorize it differently for the benefit of a perspective.

Fridmarr wrote:You are misunderstanding our point. Those folks in Texas putting stuff in textbooks aren't "religion" they are people interpreting a religion. And frankly, the most prominent authority of their own religion disagrees with them. I don't think the bible says "evolution is wrong" and I think reading genesis and concluding it is at odds with evolution is an individual interpretation but that's an entirely different topic.

There's no universal set of religious rules, so the notion that "religion says" anything is kind of silly. That's like saying humanity says 2+2=5 because some member of humanity probably did at some point. Passionario pointed out some things "science says" that are/were wrong, which provides a proper context. It's not that science is wrong, it's that the people implementing the science were wrong. It's no different with religion and I think it's a bit unfair to categorize it differently for the benefit of a perspective.

Actually I don't think you're getting my point. Religions are made of and by people, not god. Belief in a higher power is not religion.

Per Dictionary.com:

Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

The devotional and ritual observances and moral code are constructs of people, not god. Whether you are Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, or one of several other protestant Christian sects, you believe in the same god, but the *religion* is different. So it is not the belief that makes people behave a certain way, but the particular expression of that belief guided by whatever religion they belong to.

And I assure you that it is mainstream in some of these religions that god created the world exactly as described in Genesis, and the world is a bit over 6000 years old, and all species were created exactly as they exist to day, and evolution is a load of hooey.

Koatanga wrote:Actually I don't think you're getting my point. Religions are made of and by people, not god. Belief in a higher power is not religion.

Per Dictionary.com:

Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

The devotional and ritual observances and moral code are constructs of people, not god. Whether you are Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, or one of several other protestant Christian sects, you believe in the same god, but the *religion* is different. So it is not the belief that makes people behave a certain way, but the particular expression of that belief guided by whatever religion they belong to.

And I assure you that it is mainstream in some of these religions that god created the world exactly as described in Genesis, and the world is a bit over 6000 years old, and all species were created exactly as they exist to day, and evolution is a load of hooey.

Yeah yeah, I saw your comments about man made religion in your previous post, but that's inconsistent with many of your other posts which is where the problem is. In fact even in this post you go right back to it in your last paragraph. Here are some more examples:

Koatanga wrote:Religion told us the earth was flat. Religion told us that the earth was the center of the solar system and that sick people were possessed by demons. Brilliant men were imprisoned and killed because they dared to challenge religious doctrine. In the science-vs-religion debate over the centuries, religion has been wrong every single time. It has slowed the advance of scientific progress, killed scientists, and destroyed research...

What I am saying is that where religion and science have had disagreements, religion has always been proven wrong.

Where's the people in that? You never mention them, you simply lump it all into "religion" which is the same absurd logic that's always used to justify the most evil of things. You just went on for paragraphs explaining how all (err *usually) religion is a man made thing , but when it comes to your critique, you never criticize the people, just religion.

By the way, this notion religion always loses to science is really pretty ridiculous. It's kind of like saying apples always taste better than oranges.

Even ignoring the ethics involved when science is applied, which is certainly a bit more muddy, how do you categorize all the scientific theories that failed? For instance, there have been many scientific theories to challenge ID that have been proven wrong and we may not yet have one that is entirely correct, that doesn't mean that ID is correct but sometimes it's the science/challenges coming from ID or religious scientists that challenge those ultimately failed theories. How many scientists have said that parting the Red Sea was ridiculous before some research proved it possible? What about where complex life began on earth? I believe Genesis says the ocean as does every science class I ever took, but now some researchers have found evidence that it began on land...What if it turns out to be the ocean? Who wins? No one, because it's simply a logical fallacy.

You are basically putting a religious theory up against an infinite number of scientific theories and don't declare a winner until the one scientific theory is correct, then ignore all the wrong scientific theories, and if the scientific theory matches the religious theory it's a draw otherwise science wins...It's a futile exercise, you might as well flip a two headed coin.

If a belief was true, then the religion based around that belief, i.e. that which is created by the people who follow that belief (aka the "religion" because religion is the people, not the belief), would be getting its information about the universe from the very being that created the universe.

When placed against the trial-and-error methodology of science, I would expect the people with inside information, gleaned from the creator of the universe and all things in it, to be right more often than never.

For instance, if the Bible is the word of the Judeo-Christian god, then you'd think it could get the whole creation/evolution thing right, estimate with some precision the age of the earth, or realise the absurdity of Noah's Ark. Or even something so fundamental as creating light and separating the dark and light into day and night on the first day, but not creating the source of that light - the sun - until the fourth day, one day after he created fruit-bearing vegetation that operates on photosynthesis. Why so many mistakes if the person writing the book created the entire place and everything in it?

So yeah I am putting religion up against all scientific theories, because religion should always be right, because religion claims to get its information from the creator of everything.

Koatanga wrote:If a belief was true, then the religion based around that belief, i.e. that which is created by the people who follow that belief (aka the "religion" because religion is the people, not the belief), would be getting its information about the universe from the very being that created the universe.

When placed against the trial-and-error methodology of science, I would expect the people with inside information, gleaned from the creator of the universe and all things in it, to be right more often than never.

For instance, if the Bible is the word of the Judeo-Christian god, then you'd think it could get the whole creation/evolution thing right, estimate with some precision the age of the earth, or realise the absurdity of Noah's Ark. Or even something so fundamental as creating light and separating the dark and light into day and night on the first day, but not creating the source of that light - the sun - until the fourth day, one day after he created fruit-bearing vegetation that operates on photosynthesis. Why so many mistakes if the person writing the book created the entire place and everything in it?

So yeah I am putting religion up against all scientific theories, because religion should always be right, because religion claims to get its information from the creator of everything.

Sounds a bit reductive to a point. I'm very middle-of-the-road, but one thing I've always been wondering is wether the Old Testament, and well, the Bible as a whole was meant to be a definitive history of everything ever, or more like illustrated guidelines.

We know that the New Testament is more of a hodge-podge combinaison of Gospels that were chosen by a process closer to a Congress vote than divine enlightment, but who's to say the Old Testament is any better? There's that old joke about Moses bringing down the Three Tablets of Law and the Twelvoops... *Crack* Hu. Ten Commandments.

To be coldly honest, I don't think many people try and defend the Bible as an history book, and trying to defend it as one says more about the person than the book.

When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Sagara wrote:To be coldly honest, I don't think many people try and defend the Bible as an history book, and trying to defend it as one says more about the person than the book.

Wouldn't the same line of reasoning apply to those who attack the Bible as a history book?

Koatanga wrote:For instance, if the Bible is the word of the Judeo-Christian god, then you'd think it could get the whole creation/evolution thing right, estimate with some precision the age of the earth, or realise the absurdity of Noah's Ark. Or even something so fundamental as creating light and separating the dark and light into day and night on the first day, but not creating the source of that light - the sun - until the fourth day, one day after he created fruit-bearing vegetation that operates on photosynthesis. Why so many mistakes if the person writing the book created the entire place and everything in it?

If scientific articles in, for instance, Physical Review Letters, are stellar works of some of the most brilliant human minds ever, then you'd think that they would manage to get the character development right, establish a good balance of humor and mature emotional themes, or get the correct rhyming and rhythm. Or even something so fundamental as to have some interesting plot twists and immersive scene descriptions. These people are supposedly geniuses with thousands of years of theory and experimental practice behind them, and yet their writing is more boring than that of a common hack.

Koatanga wrote:If a belief was true, then the religion based around that belief, i.e. that which is created by the people who follow that belief (aka the "religion" because religion is the people, not the belief), would be getting its information about the universe from the very being that created the universe.

When placed against the trial-and-error methodology of science, I would expect the people with inside information, gleaned from the creator of the universe and all things in it, to be right more often than never.

For instance, if the Bible is the word of the Judeo-Christian god, then you'd think it could get the whole creation/evolution thing right, estimate with some precision the age of the earth, or realise the absurdity of Noah's Ark. Or even something so fundamental as creating light and separating the dark and light into day and night on the first day, but not creating the source of that light - the sun - until the fourth day, one day after he created fruit-bearing vegetation that operates on photosynthesis. Why so many mistakes if the person writing the book created the entire place and everything in it?

So yeah I am putting religion up against all scientific theories, because religion should always be right, because religion claims to get its information from the creator of everything.

Nice try, but that's just a dodge of the logical fallacy, and some rather crazy logic in its own right. Good grief, you wouldn't expect to get a detailed account of evolution from a book on algebra would you? Then why would you try to get a detailed understanding of it from the bible? Do you really think that was anywhere remotely close to its intent? Do you realize how vague genesis is about all of that stuff? It's like a grownup telling a child where babies come from.

The problem with Faith and Religion is that its very nature is dogmatic.

Tell me, what were the top 10 religious/theological breakthroughs of 2012?

Science adapts and evolves, its very nature allows it to grow, to learn from its mistakes and reach to newer truths. We've come a long way from the time there were the four humors and the earth being flat.

Yeah, there are pockets in science that refuse or are slow to change, but eventually, they fold once the evidence is there to cause a new paradigm shift.

There are talks about multiverses and string theory, of innumerable dimensions folded so tight that are invisible and out of our reach, about the fabric of reality.

There is no real room for that in dogma/religion/faith.

As for the bible... The vast majority of people don't even know how the bible came to be. To begin with, there's the Council of Nicaea, which dictated which biblical books would be considered in to form the standard bible of the roman empire. Of course, you had some crazy books that were prolly for the best to be taken from the final bible...I mean, you got the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, in which Jesus killed another boy for being a snitch!

And before that was the Septuagint, where according to folklore, 72 elders each translated the hebrew bible (Tanakh) into greek, then compared notes.

Even before that, during the development of the Tanakh there were inconsistencies.... Some books were not considered to be meaningful enough to be part of the Nevi'im (The Prophets portion of the Old Testament), some of the texts that did not make it to the Tanakh, made it to the Septuagint and to the Old Testament used by the Roman Church!

So every time I heard someone saying that the Bible is the immutable and infallible word of God, I just facepalm...

Satan entered into Judas while at supper (John 13:27)Satan entered into him before the supper (Luke 22:3,4,7)

Judas committed suicide by hanging (Matt 27:5)Judas did not hang himself, but died another way (Acts 1:18)

The potter's field was purchased by Judas (Acts 1:18)The potter's field was purchased by the Chief Priests (Matt 27:6,7)

There was but one woman who came to the sepulchre (John 20:1)There were two women who came to the sepulchre (Matt 28:1)--

Some of the contradictions can be dismissed seeing how you got old testament and new testament texts contradicting each other. But other contradictions come from texts from supposedly the same time period, or even the same text!

I remember Penn Jillete arguing about people not agreeing on the way Elvis Presley liked his fried chicken! There are books solely dedicated to Elvis' favorite food and how they're supposed to be prepared but the recipes vary from book to book... This was about what... 60 years ago? 60 years ago, in a place where you could say was highly civilized (The United States), in a time where most people knew how to read and write, in a time where it is easier to spread the word around (newspapers, radio and tv) and people cannot agree on whether Elvis Presley liked his fried chicken seasoned with PAPRIKA!!!!

Last edited by Klaudandus on Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'd like to reiterate my earlier point about stupidity being the root of the problem here. Specifically, I find unthinking acceptance of any dogma (political, scientific, religious or otherwise) without even an attempt at critical evaluation to be both stupid and wrong.

All known books were written by humans, and humans are inherently limited and fallible. Even if I make an honest attempt to translate my mystic experience or my findings about the world into a form comprehensible to other people by writing a sacred text or a scientific monograph, something will inevitably get lost in translation (the map is not the territory). I can easily make mistakes, draw erroneous conclusions, or contaminate the message with my subjective prejudices and the cultural baggage of my time. And that's the best case scenario - if my intentions are less than perfectly honest and include an agenda of some sort, things get much worse.

Blindly accepting *any* book as literal and ultimate truth - be it the Bible, Das Kapital, Atlas Shrugged, On the Origin of Species or History Textbook for 6th Grade - is, in my eyes, a recipe for disaster.

On other hand, dismissing a book out of hand because it fails to be the aforementioned literal/ultimate truth is hardly smart, either. Read it, think about it and take everything with a grain of salt - that's the way to go.

Passionario wrote:On other hand, dismissing a book out of hand because it fails to be the aforementioned literal/ultimate truth is hardly smart, either. Read it, think about it and take everything with a grain of salt - that's the way to go.

That's the funny part, I'm pretty well read in the bible... Being that I was being groomed to join a seminar and my uncle started me on that as a kid...

Please, please, please, don't make religion or faith out to be fallacious based purely on 1 canonical book, which has a history of being translated in very different ways.Also, context is king, and remember that unlike scientific papers, canonical books are not listings of facts, they are a guide to how to live according to that faiths writers of the time it was written - not all of which has naything to do with religion, but has to do with culture, which evolves;1. Corinthians 11:5-6 (King James version)But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Clearly this has nothing to do with modern culture, and is not adhered to by a clear majority of christians, that is not proof of a fallacy of either the bible, the christians, or the faith, merely proof that we live in a different world around 2000 years later.

Passionario wrote:I'd like to reiterate my earlier point about stupidity being the root of the problem here. Specifically, I find unthinking acceptance of any dogma (political, scientific, religious or otherwise) without even an attempt at critical evaluation to be both stupid and wrong.

Enigma will take you where Dogma cannot. Repeat and apply ad nauseam.

Passionario wrote:All known books were written by humans, and humans are inherently limited and fallible. Even if I make an honest attempt to translate my mystic experience or my findings about the world into a form comprehensible to other people by writing a sacred text or a scientific monograph, something will inevitably get lost in translation (the map is not the territory). I can easily make mistakes, draw erroneous conclusions, or contaminate the message with my subjective prejudices and the cultural baggage of my time. And that's the best case scenario - if my intentions are less than perfectly honest and include an agenda of some sort, things get much worse.

Blindly accepting *any* book as literal and ultimate truth - be it the Bible, Das Kapital, Atlas Shrugged, On the Origin of Species or History Textbook for 6th Grade - is, in my eyes, a recipe for disaster.

On other hand, dismissing a book out of hand because it fails to be the aforementioned literal/ultimate truth is hardly smart, either. Read it, think about it and take everything with a grain of salt - that's the way to go.

Interestingly, this is the sum total of the scientific method: observe, analyse, theorize, test, report. Not that it implies that "followers of Science" are innately better - because like any faithful, they are quite adept at failing at their own faith.

Now, is it me, or is everyone at least agreeing on the "we don't know, and whatever we believe is based on either guesswork, Occam's Razor or wishful thinking"?

When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Klaudandus wrote:Some of the contradictions can be dismissed seeing how you got old testament and new testament texts contradicting each other. But other contradictions come from texts from supposedly the same time period, or even the same text!

All of these come from the same forum in the same time period! Clearly, Ret pallies are as mysterious as Elvis and God.

One possible way out of this maze was offered by Alfred Korzybski (and later expanded by creators of E-Prime language). If we replace "X is Y" statements with something along the lines of "under conditions M and N, X appears to be Y", things become much more clear.

For example, statements 'Bob is an angry and grouchy person' and "Bob is a happy and friendly guy" appear to be pretty much irreconcilable (unless we assume that one of them is a lie, or that Bob is manic-depressive). However, once we add extra qualifiers 'Bob appears to be an angry and grouchy person when he's in his cubicle at the office' and 'Bob appears to be a happy and friendly guy when relaxing on the beach with his girlfriend', the contradiction vanishes.

Sagara wrote:Now, is it me, or is everyone at least agreeing on the "we don't know, and whatever we believe is based on either guesswork, Occam's Razor or wishful thinking"?

And the sum of our personal experiences, both negative and positive. That's also a major factor.

Fridmarr wrote:Where's the people in that? You never mention them, you simply lump it all into "religion" which is the same absurd logic that's always used to justify the most evil of things. You just went on for paragraphs explaining how all (err *usually) religion is a man made thing , but when it comes to your critique, you never criticize the people, just religion.

I'm steering pretty clear of the religion debate this time around. I've had enough of it lately, and I'd be liable to suffer an aneurysm if I had to debate it right now, but I wanted to make a few points.

@FridmarrIf he says that Religion is a man made thing, and then he goes about critiquing Religion, he is in fact critiquing the people by definition, because without the people, there would be no religion in his determination. It's an ideology, that I agree with. Faith, is always defined as a more personal "thing" when dealing with "religion", while "Religion" is more of a social construct.

@Contradictions in the bible. As to pointing out the contradictions in the bible, one of the biggest is found in the New Testament. Compare the geneologies given by Luke, and Matthew for Jesus. There are glaring discrepancies between the two.

The big thing that people trip all over themselves about the bible, is that they think that this is some giant text that belongs together. It's the holy word of God! But it's not. Even if it was divinely inspired.

It's a collection of texts written by dozens men. Some of the texts are written as personal journals, and some of them (Genesis) were written 2500+ years later, by someone who obviously did not witness the events. And some of them, were outright "predicting the future" (Revelations and the prophets of the late Old Testament as the biggest examples).

These were not written by one man. They were not written by 2 men. They were written by dozens of men, who lived across the ages. They were assembled into a book, and claimed as divine, many years later. Moses didn't write Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers and Dueteronomy, expecting that they would later be chopped into separate "books", and then placed in a "bigger" book, with other "Books" and used as an overarching holy text. He most likely wrote those texts as a work for his people. To ensure that the traditions, and culture, and history of his people would be protected, as well as their faith.

He didn't know that thousands of years later, a man named Paul would write, and then a thousand or so years later, someone would decide that they all needed to go in the same book.

And there are plenty of texts out there that are held by the Catholic Church, Jewish Sects, and other Religious entities that detail many things from the time period. They are historical records of a culture over the years, and a biased historical record as well. Without reading, and understanding other historical texts from the time, it's hard to understand some of the "why" in the bible.

Why weren't they allowed to eat pork or Shellfish? Because that was a long time ago, and they weren't capable of ensuring that it would be clean, and safe to eat. Why does the New Testament speak heavily on Sexual Deviancy? Because they were pushing back against the incredibly debaucherous culture of the time. Go look up Caligula. There is a reason his life became fodder for a porn. Then, consider that by most accounts, Caligula rose to power shortly after the events of the life of Christ as we know it.

There are reasons why the bible says things, and not all of them are related to Faith. Many of them were/are related to everyday life of the time.

Shoju wrote:@FridmarrIf he says that Religion is a man made thing, and then he goes about critiquing Religion, he is in fact critiquing the people by definition, because without the people, there would be no religion in his determination. It's an ideology, that I agree with. Faith, is always defined as a more personal "thing" when dealing with "religion", while "Religion" is more of a social construct.

Right but that doesn't change anything. "Religion" is the broadest possible reference and it's a slippery slope. To take your comment further, since humans made religion, that's like saying, humanity said the earth 5000 years old, so humanity is stupid. Humanity persecuted scientists who said it wasn't, so humanity is evil. We are all humans so we are all stupid and evil.

Religion didn't "say" those things, some people interpreteted religious texts to mean that, in spite of evidence to the contrary. People will believe what they want to believe and do what they want to do, religion isn't a provervbial gun to anyone's head. It's a series of choices and actions that leads one to accept a religion, adhere to a religion, adhere to a specific intepretation of a religion, and to ignore evidence to the contrary.

If you want to rip on folks for reaching such conclusions, that's fine, but don't try to pin it on "religion".

Fridmarr wrote:Religion didn't "say" those things, some people interpreteted religious texts to mean that, in spite of evidence to the contrary. People will believe what they want to believe and do what they want to do, religion isn't a provervbial gun to anyone's head. It's a series of choices and actions that leads one to accept a religion, adhere to a religion, adhere to a specific intepretation of a religion, and to ignore evidence to the contrary.

If you want to rip on folks for reaching such conclusions, that's fine, but don't try to pin it on "religion".

Well what do you call it when a whole bunch of people with nothing more in common than they go to the same kind of church believe that their god created the heavens and the earth and all creatures upon the earth just as they are, such that "evolution is hooey" as has been proclaimed by a member of the Texas board of education?

If a whole bunch of people believing in the same way about their god isn't a religion, what do you call it?

Fridmarr wrote:Right but that doesn't change anything. "Religion" is the broadest possible reference and it's a slippery slope. To take your comment further, since humans made religion, that's like saying, humanity said the earth 5000 years old, so humanity is stupid. Humanity persecuted scientists who said it wasn't, so humanity is evil. We are all humans so we are all stupid and evil.

Yes. It is the broadest term. No, it's not the perfect term. Even the bible aludes to humans being evil, wicked, terrible creatures, until they find god. It's riddle throughout both the old and New Testament. Jesus even says in Matthew 7, that there is one but good. God.

Fridmarr wrote:Religion didn't "say" those things, some people interpreteted religious texts to mean that, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Well of course "Religion" didn't say that. It can't speak. It's not a sentient "thing" it's a societal construct created by people.

Fridmarr wrote: People will believe what they want to believe and do what they want to do, religion isn't a provervbial gun to anyone's head.

Yeah. You're right. I forgot about all the stunning talks I had growing up.

Don't listen to that, you'll go to hellDon't have sex before marriage, you'll go to hellDon't masturbate, you'll go to hell Don't get tattoos, you'll go to hellDon't be gay, you'll go to hell Don't have an abortion, you'll go to hell Don't use Birth Control, you'll go to hell.

All of these things, based on Doctrines of Religion. Yes. Totally never ever used as a "Gun to someone's head" It's not the gun against someone's head to get them to conform. It's the gun against someone's head to keep them inline.

These aren't things believed by one person. These are beliefs held by entire denominations of Christian people. And what is a denomination? A subset of a religion.

It's a series of choices and actions that leads one to accept a religion, adhere to a religion, adhere to a specific intepretation of a religion, and to ignore evidence to the contrary.

Which, from my perspective is 100% completely the problem. You and I have debated it before. I think that the current position of religion is a sham. People want their sermons from the pulpit on Sunday, Wednesday, or Saturday, or whatever other holy day their denomination has, but they don't want to read, they don't want to question, they don't want to understand.

They have accepted the societal construct that is their religion, and choose not to question it, or the people who "administer" it.

If you want to rip on folks for reaching such conclusions, that's fine, but don't try to pin it on "religion".

[/quote]

Well, I will continue to "Rip" Religion for it. Religion, from my perspective, (and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here) is the problem. Religion, the societal construct, is the problem. Not Faith. I have no problem with Faith. I find myself more conflicted in my beliefs than most. But Religion, in the definition of the societal surroundings, is very much the problem.

Fridmarr wrote:Religion didn't "say" those things, some people interpreteted religious texts to mean that, in spite of evidence to the contrary. People will believe what they want to believe and do what they want to do, religion isn't a provervbial gun to anyone's head. It's a series of choices and actions that leads one to accept a religion, adhere to a religion, adhere to a specific intepretation of a religion, and to ignore evidence to the contrary.

If you want to rip on folks for reaching such conclusions, that's fine, but don't try to pin it on "religion".

Well what do you call it when a whole bunch of people with nothing more in common than they go to the same kind of church believe that their god created the heavens and the earth and all creatures upon the earth just as they are, such that "evolution is hooey" as has been proclaimed by a member of the Texas board of education?

If a whole bunch of people believing in the same way about their god isn't a religion, what do you call it?

"A religion" is not the same thing as "religion" the same way that "a man" is not same thing as "mankind".

Are there lots of people who believe that evolution is hooey because they believe that their religion says so and choose their religion over scientific theory? Of course. But are there also a lot of religious people that have no such entanglement with science? That evolution is merely the natural process of God's will? Of course. Why do you insist on lumping them into the same bucket? Again science and religion are not necessarily opposed.

Shoju wrote:Yes. It is the broadest term. No, it's not the perfect term. Even the bible aludes to humans being evil, wicked, terrible creatures, until they find god. It's riddle throughout both the old and New Testament. Jesus even says in Matthew 7, that there is one but good. God.

Are you seriously suggesting that's OK to use such language because the bible does the same thing? Do you always treat people by association with a demographic? I find that appalling. It's at the root of some of the worst sorts of behavior of mankind.

Shoju wrote:Well of course "Religion" didn't say that. It can't speak. It's not a sentient "thing" it's a societal construct created by people.

It's also not a singular entity and not capable of having a singular position, which is the point.

Shoju wrote:Yeah. You're right. I forgot about all the stunning talks I had growing up.

Don't listen to that, you'll go to hellDon't have sex before marriage, you'll go to hellDon't masturbate, you'll go to hell Don't get tattoos, you'll go to hellDon't be gay, you'll go to hell Don't have an abortion, you'll go to hell Don't use Birth Control, you'll go to hell.

Oh right, because those are really effective. Nothing convinces a person to not do something like a threat that they'll go to hell (which again...not a universal axiom of religion). How many on that list have you done/supported? I'm guessing it's not zero...that's a pretty shitty gun, or are you actually posting from hell? They aren't based on doctrines of religion, they are based on doctrines of a religion...I have no idea which one, but there's probably one out there like that.

Shoju wrote:Which, from my perspective is 100% completely the problem. You and I have debated it before. I think that the current position of religion is a sham. People want their sermons from the pulpit on Sunday, Wednesday, or Saturday, or whatever other holy day their denomination has, but they don't want to read, they don't want to question, they don't want to understand.

They have accepted the societal construct that is their religion, and choose not to question it, or the people who "administer" it.

I'm glad that you presume to know what people want and what they do. I mean based on the stellar examples of religious influences that you have commented on in your life, it's clear that you ought have the entire planet figured out. I'm sorry that your interactions have been so terrible for you, I really am, but I don't think that projecting them on to everybody else paints an accurate picture. How familiar are you with people of faiths that aren't Christian? I'm just curious because everything you rail about seems limited to that group.

Shoju wrote:Well, I will continue to "Rip" Religion for it. Religion, from my perspective, (and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here) is the problem. Religion, the societal construct, is the problem. Not Faith. I have no problem with Faith. I find myself more conflicted in my beliefs than most. But Religion, in the definition of the societal surroundings, is very much the problem.

Yes, unfortunately you are not alone. Sadly, it's a rather common position. Religion the societal construct isn't anything special. It's not particularly different than most other of the countless societal constructs. It can be good, bad, or indifferent. I'm glad we don't treat the local book club like we do the KKK though. Maybe we should look at each religious group on its own merits instead of on our own interactions with religion or whatever stereotype we want to apply to them.

Fridmarr wrote:Religion didn't "say" those things, some people interpreteted religious texts to mean that, in spite of evidence to the contrary. People will believe what they want to believe and do what they want to do, religion isn't a provervbial gun to anyone's head. It's a series of choices and actions that leads one to accept a religion, adhere to a religion, adhere to a specific intepretation of a religion, and to ignore evidence to the contrary.

If you want to rip on folks for reaching such conclusions, that's fine, but don't try to pin it on "religion".

Well what do you call it when a whole bunch of people with nothing more in common than they go to the same kind of church believe that their god created the heavens and the earth and all creatures upon the earth just as they are, such that "evolution is hooey" as has been proclaimed by a member of the Texas board of education?

If a whole bunch of people believing in the same way about their god isn't a religion, what do you call it?

"A religion" is not the same thing as "religion" the same way that "a man" is not same thing as "mankind".

Are there lots of people who believe that evolution is hooey because they believe that their religion says so and choose their religion over scientific theory? Of course. But are there also a lot of religious people that have no such entanglement with science? That evolution is merely the natural process of God's will? Of course. Why do you insist on lumping them into the same bucket? Again science and religion are not necessarily opposed.

That's just semantics, isn't it? Can you not infer from context that when I am talking about religious people who believe in creationism and take Genesis literally that I am speaking about those people among those particular religions who espouse those beliefs?

When I said that where religion and science disagree, science has been correct every time, clearly I am referring to instances where "a religion" or "persons within a religion sharing the same belief" believed something contrary to science, such as creationism or Noah's ark.

Clearly I am not saying that every member of every religion believes the same thing.

To what level do I need to refine the term such that I can speak without being bogged down with semantics? Do I need to specify the religion, the individual church, or whether it is the 8 am or 10 am service? Because I do not have a list of all the individuals in the US who believe in creationism - I only have a Gallup poll reporting that a whopping 40% of Americans believe in a strict interpretation of creationism: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four- ... onism.aspx

69% of Americans are very or moderately religious: http://www.gallup.com/poll/159050/seven ... gious.aspx So the majority of religious people in the US believe in a strict interpretation of creationism, if one assumes that none of the nonreligious people believe in creationism, which seems logical, although we are talking about Americans here...

When the majority of people feel the same way, can you use the general term to describe them? Is it invalid to say "religioius people believe something" when in the general sense it is true, but on the specific level it may or may not be? Can I say "tigers are orange with black stripes" or do I need to qualify that by including white tigers? At what percentage does the general become acceptable?

69% of Americans are very or moderately religious: http://www.gallup.com/poll/159050/seven ... gious.aspx So the majority of religious people in the US believe in a strict interpretation of creationism, if one assumes that none of the nonreligious people believe in creationism, which seems logical, although we are talking about Americans here...

Selfdescribing as "very" or "Moderately" religious does not mean that each and every one of them subscribes to every "very" or "moderately" relifious or fanatical idea (depending on how you describe it).

Also, on the faith/science intersection - science doesn't explain why, it explains how (and the causality of how).For instance, science explains how lightning is formed physcially due to the different charge of ground and clouds or inbetween clouds. That does not preclude that the metaphysical reason for the lightning isn't Zeus, Thor or God.

An analogy, a microwave oven pushes waterparticles in food so it heats up. That explains why food gets hot causality. But it doesn't explain that it only does so because I started the microwave - now imaginge you could observe the effects and causality of the microwave, and could explain the workings of the microwave oven (on a much larger scale), but couldn't percieve or explain me - some would say that science in such a world would deny my existance, but it doesn't, it simply explains what can be percieved and what can be explained.